Will a Democratic Yoda please step up
chicagotribune.com
In a different era, a party elder such as Al Gore or Jimmy Carter would try to intervene in the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama battle in a bid to avert chaos at the convention.
By Naftali Bendavid
Washington Bureau
The Chicago Tribune
March 14, 2008
WASHINGTON — Maybe Al Gore could jump in and fix the mess. He's won a Nobel Peace Prize, after all.
Or George Mitchell, who worked for peace in Northern Ireland.
Or Jimmy Carter. Anyone who brought together Arabs and Israelis should arguably be able to unify squabbling Democrats.
As it becomes increasingly clear that the battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be both nasty and long, some Democrats are longing for an elder statesman or respected party leader who could step in and resolve the fight before it damages the Democrats' chances in the fall.
But it's not clear any such person exists. The days of Clark Clifford, counselor to presidents, or Sam Rayburn, who had enormous clout, are long past. As politics has become more transparent and democratic, scholars say, little room remains for the quiet adviser or party boss who can speak truth to presidents (or would-be presidents) in the greater interest of the party.
That, however, hasn't stopped the desire or the speculation. A scenario widely discussed in the blogosphere and elsewhere is that a strong leader would discreetly ask Clinton to step aside because she cannot win the battle for pledged delegates. Failing that, some hope for a "wise man" to mediate the bitter dispute over Florida and Michigan.
It's increasingly clear that such action, if any, would take place after the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, and perhaps as a last-minute effort to avert a chaotic convention.
"I would look to Al Gore, John Edwards, Bill Richardson—people who have been presidential candidates, but are not committed at this point and have a national reputation," said Michael Mezey, a political scientist at DePaul University.
A long shot
But many observers said such intervention is a long shot at best. For one thing, most party elders are committed to one camp or the other—Bill Clinton most obviously, but also figures like Sen. Edward Kennedy, a big Obama backer.
Beyond that, it's hard to imagine anyone with the clout or stature to force Hillary Clinton or Obama to do anything against their will.
The lack of such a commanding figure may say something about how American politics has changed from the days when the parties had "wise men"—discreet counselors who could step in during times of crisis. "There are just as many wise Democrats as there ever were, but they don't get to play Yoda anymore," said John J. Pitney of Claremont McKenna College.
W. Averell Harriman and Clifford, for example, advised presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson. And it was a group of influential Republican senators led by Barry Goldwater who persuaded President Richard Nixon it was time to resign.
An open question
Whether such princely figures could prevail on an ambitious presidential hopeful to withdraw is an open question. More obvious clout belonged to bosses such as House Speaker Rayburn of Texas or Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, who controlled enough delegates to impose their will.
But those days are gone. The bulk of convention delegates are now chosen not by party chieftains, but democratically through primaries and caucuses. Fundraising, too, has become democratized, so powerful patrons hold less sway.
"When American politics was still hierarchical, the Clinton-Obama kerfuffle would indeed have been resolved by a few heavyweight elder statesmen of the party calling a mafia-like conclave, preferably at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, and smacking delegate heads together for the good of the party," said Steffen Schmidt, a political scientist at Iowa State University. "Alas, neither the Fontainebleau nor the party pooh-bahs are what they used to be."
Yet few entirely rule out a scenario in which Obama and Clinton are bitterly fighting it out as the Democratic convention approaches and a few party leaders, probably including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, publicly or privately pressure one of them to withdraw.
But that point, if it comes, is still a few months away, and much could change by then. And the irony is, neither Obama nor Clinton is the sort of conventional politician the party elders of the past would likely have backed.
"Even if there were a group of party heavyweights," Schmidt said, "their choice would most likely be John Edwards, and not the two exciting but risky front-runners."
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune |
